was surprised at the opposition which was now made to the bill, as in the committee there was a majority in its favor of fourteen to one. The principle of the bill was one which he considered the House bound to support. The question was, whether the parish of St. James was to be governed by a vestry selected by the parishioners, or by a self-elected body, who were to dispose of the parish funds as they might think proper.

opposed the measure, because it was introduced in a different shape to that agreed to by the committee. The object of the bill was, to effect a different management in the affairs of the parish to that by which it had been governed for many years past, and it necessarily involved these three points: first, whether there was any necessity for making any alteration in that management; secondly, whether, if any was necessary, the mode suggested by this bill was the proper one; and thirdly, whether this was the proper time for introducing the change. Now, as to the management of the parish affairs, he admitted they had been so conducted as to be open to some censure, but he denied that the mismanagement had been to an extent which required the interference of the House. The time chosen for bringing in this bill he considered objectionable, as a committee was sitting to inquire into the whole system of select vestries. The bill was, in truth, flying in the face of that committee, and he saw many reasons for opposing its further progress.

expressed a hope that the House would not negative a bill which had been so anxiously wished for by the inhabitants of St. James's. Fourteen out of fifteen of the committee had voted in favor of the bill; and the opposition to it, if any, ought to have been made at an earlier period.

trusted that the House would not now, at the eleventh hour, stop short in doing this act of justice to the inhabitants of St. James's, who appealed to them as to the propriety of allowing a self-elected body, who had at their disposal a sum of 63,000l. a-year, to be the auditors of their own accounts, and to be accountable only to themselves. If there existed no other argument against such a course of proceeding, one might be found in the conduct of the opponents of the bill. The hon. mover and seconded of the amendment were both select vestry-men in that parish; and though he felt perfectly convinced that they were incapable of any unfairness, yet it was the natural tendency of such a system to lead to mismanagement and irregularity. The hon. member for Oxford, though he opposed the bill, admitted that mismanagement existed in the vestry. How were the parishioners to be secured against the continuance of that mismanagement? They had been told, that the vestry was composed of men of the first respectability. This he did not pretend to deny; but let not the House be led away by that fact. He would mention one or two facts, and then leave the House to consider whether the present system ought to be continued. Lord Hardwicke was a select vestry-man, but during the last ten years that respectable nobleman had not attended the auditing of the accounts. There was another nobleman, earl Spencer, who had not attended the auditing of the account during the last ten years. Every means had been used to conciliate the opponents of the bill, but they refused to listen to terms; declaring their decided hostility to the principle of the bill. He hoped the House would consider the great expense to which individuals had been put in introducing this bill. When he, on former occasions, introduced individual cases, he was called upon to bring forward some remedy, and now that he brought forward such a measure, it was opposed. He regretted that his hon. colleague was prevented, by illness, from attending to give his support to the bill.

said, that had he been left to himself, he would have gone on as he had done for the last thirty years; but when he found the majority of the parish of a different opinion, he could not help putting this question to himself, "Ought any body of men who have the expenditure of the parish to be allowed to audit their own accounts?" He felt that they ought not; and he should be acting contrary to the principles by which he had been guided during his whole life if he did not give his support to the bill.

The House divided: For the original Motion 61; Against it 83; Majority in favour of the Amendment 22. The bill was consequently lost.

moved the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on this question. He said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that when this subject was last under the consideration of the House, doubts existed whether the Resolution he had proposed ought not to have reference at once to the provisions of the recently-enacted Statute. With a view to meet those doubts, he would now withdraw his Motion, and move, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, to make out (subject to the provisions of an Act passed in this Session of Parliament, intituled, 'An Act. to amend certain Acts of the Parliament of Ireland relative to the election of Members to serve in Parliament, and to regulate the qualification of persons to vote at the election of Knights of the Shire in Ireland,') a new Writ for the electing of a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Clare, in the room of Daniel O'Connell, esq., who, having been returned a Member of this House before the commencement of an Act passed in this Session of Parliament 'for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects,' has refused to qualify himself to sit and vote as a Member of this House, by taking the Oath of Supremacy."

said, that in pursuance of the notice he had given, he rose for the purpose of moving an amendment, both to what was now proposed, and to the proposition that had been formerly made. Before he went into his argument, he wished to state, that the motion he was about to make was wholly unconnected with the individual whose name was mentioned in it. It neither proceeded from the suggestion of that individual, nor had there been regarding it any communication on his own part, or on the part of any individual he was connected with; and at that moment he did not know what were the feelings and wishes of Mr. O'Connell on the subject. He need only further say, that it was a motion unconnected with any species of party feeling. The events which characterised the application to that House—the manner in which that application had been treated; namely, as a purely judicial case—the events which had recently occurred, shewed that it was not to be considered as a measure of party. On the contrary, he was ready to admit, that whilst he was discharging this duty, he felt that it was strictly a personal duty; and, in the same manner, that he was strictly responsible for it. There was no individual in that House more ready to express, as an Irishman, the obligations he owed the government for the measure they had lately carried through parliament. It was not therefore in hostility to them, but, as he had before stated, with reference to the tranquillity of Ireland, and with reference to the due execution of the law which had been passed, that he made the motion. It was not necessary for the purposes of the argument that he should go into the Relief bill. He admitted, for the sake of the argument, that the effect of that bill must be taken for granted. He would not question the decision of a majority of that House that, under the provisions of the law, Mr. O'Connell having refused to take the Oaths, was ineligible to sit as a member there. The question he should raise was founded on that proposition; and he trusted that when honourable members came to consider the case, they would find that, although they were right in affirming, as they had done, under a given state of the law, that Mr. O'Connell was not entitled to a seat, they might be disposed to say, that the state of the law called for redress. That was his measure, and to that measure he hoped for their assent. He should not have brought forward this motion at all, but for the motion of the learned gentleman. What he should recommend was not, he admitted, goods per se, but it was a measure better, on grounds of public expediency, than the motion made by the learned gentleman. Before he applied himself to this question, he would refer to an occurrence which took place in the committee on the Relief bill, to which reference had been made. Honourable gentlemen would recollect that, in the committee on that bill, the hon. member for Dublin, seeing what would be the consequence of the bill as it then stood, suggested the propriety of amending that particular clause of the bill which applied to Roman Catholic members of parliament; who had been elected before that bill was brought in—a clause which applied specifically, though not in terms, to Mr. O'Connell, On that occasion he (Mr. Rice) stated, on the part of Mr. O'Connell, that he did not wish any question personal to himself to be introduced on the passing of that bill, which might be calculated to arrest the progress of that measure. He believed he had said, that on that occasion he spoke for another, and expressed no opinion on his own behalf; and as that was a point which might be mistaken, he would repeat what a right hon. friend of his, a member of the king's government, had said to him on that occasion. That right hon. gentleman spoke to him on that occasion, and observed with what caution he had made the communication, and had abstained from making any remark whatever; and if Mr. O'Connell was at that time a petitioner at that bar, seeking relief from the operation of that bill, the declaration he had made might be stated in bar of his request. But it was not, he would repeat, only Mr. O'Connell who was concerned in the present proposition—it was a question that related to the peace of Ireland; and no act of Mr. O'Connell, nor of any other man, ought to distract that House from the real issue before them—which was, that it was their duty to do that which would convey to the community at large the greatest sum of good. To that issue he would proceed to apply his observations; and he now came to consider the proposition of the learned gentleman. It was on Tuesday last that, after a protracted debate, an Order was made, for the attendance of Mr. O'Connell on the day following. He attended, and the Speaker then read to him the Resolution of the House. They had no right to say that Mr. O'Connell had any notice of that resolution until it was read to him? for he was not in official possession of that decision of the parliament until four o'clock; and what ensued afterwards; the Solicitor-general moved, that a new writ should issue for Clare; in other words, that Mr. O'Connell, who had been declared duly elected, should cease to be a member of that House, and that there should be a new election. He could not but complain of the breathless haste which the Solicitor-general had manifested. If he wished for evidence of that, he might refer to what had taken place. that night—a matter unexampled in a deliberative assembly, and with reference to a severe determination—namely, that the measure which he, as the organ of government, proposed, on a resumed discussion, was not, in his own view of the matter, fit to be adopted without alteration. With regard to what that proposition had been, there had been many misrepresentations out of doors. There were gentlemen who considered that, as a matter of course, the refusal of Mr. O'Connell to take the oaths occasioned a vacancy, and that a new writ must of course be granted. The Solicitor-general, however, would not contend for that proposition; he admitted that it was different from the case of one who had sat and voted; in which case the seat would be at once vacated, and a new writ must issue. If what was now proposed was to be justified at all, it was to be justified solely by the will and pleasure of that House; for certainly there was no statute which called on them to adopt it. The House had the power to act upon it; but to do so or not to do so was completely within their own province. The Solicitor-general, in making that proposition, had not stated one argument in recommendation of it; and it stood before them as a naked proposition, put from the Chair, on the motion of an hon. member. It was founded simply on the precedent afforded by the case of Mr. Archdale. He admitted that it was the right of that House, under the circumstances of that case to direct the issue of a new writ; but the Solicitor-general had not said that it was imperative on them to do so. It was matter of expediency; and being matter of expediency, it was for that House to judge whether it was advisable to adopt the course now recommended. He said, that the case of Mr.Archdale was the only one applicable to the present subject. The cases of sir H. Monson and of lord Fanshaw, were entirely within a different principle. He admitted that the proceeding might be justified as to their power to adopt it. The only question was as to its policy and expediency. He could wish that the measure rested solely on the declaration of the House, that Mr. O'Connell could not take his seat without taking the oaths. What was the case in this instance? Mr. O'Connell might have been permitted to exercise his discretion whether he would or not accept the Chiltern Hundreds; but no such opportunity was afforded him. For the first time, at four o'clock in the afternoon, he heard that the House had decided against his right to take his seat; and at five minutes after four o'clock, a new writ was moved for. It had been said, that the suspension of the issuing of a new writ was open to many objections; that it was the first necessity and duty of the House to fill up the vacancy that had occurred. To those who felt the weight of that duty the proposition he should make was open to no objection. He proposed that they should take the obviously simple mode of getting over the difficulty, by admitting the individual who had been returned. He saw no great force in the argument as to filling up the number of members in that House, unless the electors of Clare applied to that House, and said they were unrepresented, and called on that House to issue a new writ for a new election. But they had done no such thing; and, if he mistook not, the electors of Clare had been accustomed to be unrepresented. If the doctrine of the fullness of the House rendered a new writ necessary, it was competent to a majority of that House to enforce obedience to that necessity. But such a necessity had not always been observed and obeyed. On one occasion a gentleman, who had been appointed to a high office in the colonies, represented that county [no, no] but, if he was wrong in that instance, the county was represented by a right hon. friend of his, who, during the same period, was an ambassador at the Court of Stockholm. If, by a call of the House, the absence of the hon. member for Clare had been brought before them, it would have been their duty to notice it; if there had been a complaint made by his constituents, then also it might fairly have been brought forward; but he (Mr. Spring Rice) objected to the proposition of the Solicitor-general, because, under the circumstances, it would, in point of fact, bring the House into contact with a single individual, and compel them to run the risk of making Mr. O'Connell a political martyr, and of again plunging Ireland into discord and distraction. Who was the hon. gentleman, he would ask, whom they had to deal with? That was a ques- tion which Mr. O'Connell himself asked the House, in that address which had produced so deep an impression upon them. That hon. gentleman inquired, what was the House disposed to do with him? He would not repeat that question; but he would ask, who was Mr. O'Connell? How were they called on to deal with him? Was he a single individual, not connected with the sympathy of the majority of the religious community to which he belonged? Was it merely the freeholders of the county of Clare that were interested in him as a representative? That House would show itself to be in a state of ignorance if it supposed, in fact, such to be the case. Mr. O'Connell, it was true, was the representative of the county of Clare; but he was viewed as the representative of the feeling, sympathies, and interests, of the whole Catholic people of Ireland, who as one man would feel whatever affected him individually. The right hon. gentleman, he perceived, dissented from what he was saying; but he would ask, whether there was an Irishman in the House that did not know that this question was a question of the greatest importance, and that from the highest to the lowest there was not one single Roman Catholic in Ireland who did not feel as deep an interest in it as any constituent of Mr. O'Connell? The House had heard much of the agitation which had prevailed in Ireland. He entreated the House seriously to consider, whether the step they were now called upon to take had not a direct tendency to re-produce that very result which every good man wished to avoid. They had passed three bills in the course of the present session, to which more importance was attached than to any measure that ever was before the House. But if they agreed to issue a new writ for the county of Clare, they would undo all the advantages they had conferred. By forcing on a new election in the county of Clare, they would raise the very scaffolding which they had taken so much pains to destroy. Instead of the Association, there would be a committee sitting in Dublin for the return of Mr. O'Connell; and in that course they would be justified by the vote that House was asked to pass that evening. He said again, the Catholics of Ireland would be justified; for if any of them was indifferent to the return of Mr. O'Connell that individual could have no true feeling of gratitude to the man who had fought his battles, and by whose instrumentality the Catholics succeeded. He would take the liberty, on behalf of the friends of the Relief bill, to claim that the revival of agitation should not be ascribed to the failure of that measure, but to this forced election in the county of Clare. Very different would be the result, if that election, instead of being forced on the county by the House, were brought on by a vacancy created by an act of Mr. O'Connell himself. The bill which he should ask leave to introduce, would consist of a single clause, enacting that "the Oath to be, in all cases, taken at the table of the House by Roman Catholic members, shall be the oath provided in the Relief bill and no other." It was said by many honourable gentlemen, that they did not believe it was intended by the Relief bill to exclude Mr. O'Connell. This opinion was repeated on great authority; and if it were half as general in his own country, he would not propose the bill he wished to introduce. But the people there were not so credulous or ingenuous as his hon. friend, the member for Kirkcudbright, who believed that it was a matter of accident by which Mr. O'Connell was excluded; for the enactment applied to this case, and to this case alone. He called on those who were disposed to vote against him to shew one inconvenience or suggest one danger which could arise from the admission of Mr. O'Connell into that House. He had shown what, in all probability, the result of a new election would be. He did not like to hear honourable gentlemen support the proposition of the Solicitor-general on the ground of upholding the dignity of the House; for that was a pretext used when all other reasons failed. A right hon. gentleman had referred to what had occurred in another place, when an amendment was moved to the Relief Bill, to make it more directly applicable to the case of Mr. O'Connell. That proposition came from a quarter entitled to the highest possible respect; but he called on the House to listen to the answer which was returned by a learned lord, high in his majesty's councils: "I would ask your lordships whether, in a measure of such immense importance, it would be advisable for your lordships to descend from the high station in which the legislature should stand, to make the act turn against one single individual?" That was a justification of his motion, He appealed to any man of sense to declare whether the construction which the House had put upon the act did not make it turn against a single individual? It was not fit that persons should descend from their high station to mix up petty feelings, and, above all, personal resentment, with the question. Let not the cup of gladness which had been offered to Ireland be poisoned by one noxious drop. In bringing his motion before the House, he had cautiously abstained from saying any thing calculated to excite irritation in Ireland [a laugh]. He assured the House that such had been his intention. He did not wish the people of Ireland to suppose that their cause had not been stated; and he thought that constitutional agitation in the House was better than what might be termed unconstitutional agitation out of doors. The hon. member concluded with moving, by way of amendent, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the act of the present session of parliament, entitled, 'An Act for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects,' so far as relates to the Oaths to be taken by members of the House of Commons being Roman Catholics."

seconded the motion. He said, he did so the more readily, because he had voted against the claim of the hon. member for Clare on the mere point of law. He had never come more reluctantly to a decision; but constrained as he was, to act judicially, he felt himself bound to vote against a claim which he believed to be unfounded in law. He was glad the motion of his hon. friend afforded the House an opportunity, by opening the question of expediency, to divest themselves of the purely judicial character, and assume that which was more especially their own—their deliberative character. He thought his hon. friend had established a case which was entitled to the support of that House. They had now an opportunity of making a practical demonstration, that they were not acting from personal hostility towards the hon. member for Clare; but if they did not make it, he was afraid the people of Ireland would doubt the sincerity of their professions. It was better to adopt this course than run any risk of exciting agitation again in Ireland. It was more advisable to incur a remote and speculative danger, than one near and immediate. He had rejoiced to see his noble friend, the member for Horsham, take his seat; and if anything could have added to his gratification, it would have been not only that the first Commoner in England was no longer debarred from his allotted share in government and legislation, but that there was now a fair and legitimate opportunity to rescue the legislature from the appearance, if not from the reality, of the ungracious course of acting in violation of the general spirit of the Relief bill; and at the same time to give to that admirable text all the advantage of a free and liberal commentary.

said, he should have been happy to second the motion, had he not been anticipated by the noble lord. Though he differed in some respects from the hon. mover, he trusted he should come to the same conclusion. It appeared to him that the House had got itself into a dilemma by the indiscreet manner in which the Relief bill had been forced through the House. He had opposed the bill to the utmost of his power; but he had never directed any part of his opposition against a private individual. It was far from his wish to oppose Mr. O'Connell; on the contrary, he thought that gentleman had been hardly dealt by. He knew not whether the hon. gentleman was himself aware of all the circumstances attending his case. It was unfair to assert that the clause under which Mr. O'Connell was excluded, was an inadvertency in the bill. So far from his exclusion being an inadvertency, it had been frequently adverted to. Mr. O'Connell's right had been sacrificed to a compromise between the members on his right and on his left. Did not a noble lord come down to the House and make the hon. gentleman a party to that compromise, by stating, that he had authorized him to express his wish that his situation might not be considered an obstacle to the passing of the bill? But the compromise by which the hon. gentleman's rights had been sacrificed, was not the only one made on the occasion. Another compromise had been entered into, inconsistent with the principle always professed but seldom acted on, by which three thousand, three hundred persons were unjustly deprived of their rights and privileges. If the hon. gentleman were sent back to Clare, where were the persons who had elected him? They had disappeared. By one fell stroke they had been swept away. The only part of the Bill which was ex post facto was this clause, which deprived the hon. member for Clare of his seat. God forbid that he should argue the question as to the oaths before the Lord Steward; but if he understood what had fallen from those who were learned in the law, he understood that the 5th of Elizabeth was still in force. He would ask the right hon. Secretary, whether, during the discussion on the Relief bill, he had not stated to him, that it was difficult to know what acts were repealed; and that the right hon. Secretary had replied, that when the House was in committee he would have an opportunity of introducing all the bills which he thought were repealed? As he had, however, been no party to the bill, it was not likely that he should take upon himself such a step. If he remembered aright, the learned member for Weymouth had, on that evening, said, that he conceived that no bill was repealed, but that only one form of oath was substituted for another. Since expediency had been the alleged reason for the necessity of the bill, he would ask why expediency, on this occasion, should be altogether left out of the question? He would ask, whether the same expediency which had induced the right hon. Secretary to bring forward the Relief bill ought not likewise to induce him to keep that peace in Ireland, which was in a very doubtful situation? He could easily conceive that the government labored under the apprehension that they might be forced to go further than they had intended; but still he did not see why they should hesitate to let a private individual into the House of Commons; especially as his was a case altogether unprecedented, and one in which no one could hereafter be placed. For his own part, he should like to see the hon. member for Clare take his seat in the House, for he fully concurred in the opinion once expressed by the late Mr. Canning: he should like to see those who had been, or who were likely to take the parts of demagogues, contend on the floor of that House, rather than deliver their harangues from a scaffold [hear, and a laugh].—he meant from a hustings. He was sure if honorable members consulted their own private feelings, there was not one in ten who would not support the admission of the member for Clare. If the motion of the hon. member for Limerick were carried, it was his intention to propose one or two little alterations; for he must object to the limitation which the hon. member had put to his bill; but that might be obviated by moving an instruction to the committee to extend its inquiries a little farther, and go to a few points which would give a more effectual and satisfactory relief to the Catholics. There was time enough to carry the measure through both Houses before the close of the session.

expressed his regret that any measure should have been proposed which would seem a personal visitation on the hon. member for Clare; and the more particularly after the tone and temper which that hon. gentleman had evinced in his recent address at the bar of that House. He deeply regretted the course adopted by the hon. member for Limerick, who now, more than three weeks after they had passed a bill with due deliberation, came forward to propose another bill for its amendment and that, too, on a point which was obvious to all when the measure was in progress through the House. If the hon. member had proposed to take the sense of the House on the clause which excluded the member for Clare, he would have voted with him, if he had stood in a minority of two. The clause was not only brought under the notice of the House; but an intimation was given from the hon. member for Clare himself, that any feeling with reference to him should not be an obstacle. Why, then, under these circumstances, should the measure be thrown back on the House for revision? If there were any members who supported the bill on the ground of that very clause, was it fair to turn round on them now, when, possibly, the majority in its favour might have been created by their support, and alter the bill in the only part which they approved of in it? Such a course, however desirable its result might be in other respects, would be unjust, as it would be a breach of faith with those members. If there were any who had not thought that the bill would have the effect of excluding the hon. member, to them his observations would not apply; but though he might admire their conscientious feeling, he could not give them much credit for their penetration. But he would not break faith with those who had acted under a different impression. Was there, then, no remedy for this case? He would ask, what great difficulty there would be in suspending the writ? This had been done in the case of East Retford. He knew it would be said, that the eases were different. But still it was the case of a suspension. What harm would a suspension do in the present instance? He might be asked, what good would be obtained by it? There would be a great good: the fever of excitement which now existed would be removed. The hon. member for Clare might possibly be induced to take the oath [no, no]. It was well known that, in former times, many conscientious men of the same religion as the hon. member for Clare had taken the oath. The hon. member had, it was true, declared emphatically, that he would not take it; and he must own he was not satisfied with the tone in which the declaration was made. Might not the hon. member himself obviate the difficulties of the case by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds? If the writ could be suspended, he should think it the most desirable course; but if that could not be done, rather than support the amendment, he must vote for the original motion.

said, that if on Monday he had voted in the minority against the motion of his learned friend the Solicitor-general, he felt still more bound to oppose the amendment now proposed by the hon. member for Limerick. The decision of the House on Monday was, that the hon. member for Clare was bound to take the Oath of Supremacy before he took his seat, and the hon. member had since then declared at the bar, that he could not take that oath. When the House heard the hon. member stating his reasons why he ought to be allowed to take his seat, they were admonished that, in deciding on that question, they were acting strictly in a judicial capacity. To him such an admonition was unnecessary. He had listened with the most serious attention to the statement which the hon. member made. He had listened with equal attention to the speech of his learned friend, the Solicitor-general, nor had he left his seat during the speeches which had been delivered by several hon. and learned gentlemen, who from their great legal acquirements, were most capable of forming a correct judgment on the question before them. While attending to their arguments, and incapable of following them in the legal view of the matter in debate, he looked upon himself in the character of a juryman; and in that character he felt bound, in considering that the law was penal to the individual, to consider also, that the great differences of opinion upon it, amongst so many eminent legal authorities, were calculated to raise doubt in his mind, and that he was bound to give the party before him the benefit of that doubt. He owned he had entertained some doubts, before the able and perspicuous arguments of the learned member for Peterborough; but after he had heard his speech, he did not entertain any doubt whatever, that the law did not bear the construction which the member for Clare had put upon it. He had come down to the House under the strong impression, that the bill would exclude the hon. member; but he thought, that if, from the wording of the act, the purport of it was not clearly expressed, the party to whom alone it might be considered penal had a right to the benefit of any doubt which the nature of that wording might create. He could not forget, however, that a large majority had affirmed the proposition of his learned friend, the Solicitor-general, and that they were bound by that decision. He was sorry that the decision had been so, and that they had not followed the precedent of 1801. He alluded to the case of Mr. Horne Tooke. It was well known, that when that gentleman, who was in holy orders, was returned to parliament, a motion was made by a noble lord (Temple), for a new writ for the borough which Mr. Tooke represented, on the ground that, being in holy orders he had not a right to sit in that House. The subject was referred to the consideration of a committee up stairs, which decided, that according to the usage of parliament, and to all the legal constitutional authorities, a person in holy orders ought not to sit in the House of Commons. It was on these grounds that the noble lord moved the new writ. Now he begged the attention of the House to the course which was then pursued. The person then at the head of the government was Mr. Addington, now lord Sidmouth, who before he was raised to that high station had filled with great ability the chair of that House, and was therefore well acquainted with its forms and privileges. That right hon. gentleman stated, that he had no doubt whatever on the question, and that he was ready to support the abstract proposition, that no person who had been admitted to holy orders could take his seat in the Commons. The late lord Ellenborough, who at that time held the office of Attorney-general, was of the same opinion, as was also Mr. Perceval, then Solicitor-general, and lord Stowell, then Judge Advocate, who had strongly expressed his opinion against the propriety of allowing a clergyman a seat in the House. What was the course taken by Mr. Addington under these circumstances? He had listened to the arguments against the right of Mr. Horne Tooke to sit, but having heard also the contrary opinions of such eminent men as Erskine, Grey, and Fox, he felt that it was a case of at least some doubt, and he stated that he would bring in a bill to remove that doubt, and to prevent the case from being brought into a precedent in future, but he did not think fit to exclude Mr. Tooke, as he had been duly returned. The consequence was, that the rev. gentleman sat in parliament till the next general election; and certainly a more harmless member had never sat in it, whatever might have been his conduct out of doors. He must say, then, that he regretted the course taken by the House, instead of bringing in a bill to remove any doubts in the case before them if doubt existed. But that decision having been made, he must bow to it. He could not, however, agree to the proposition of the hon. member for Limerick; for it went upon a principle as if no doubt had ever been stated or no decision given with respect to it, and as if, for the first time, they were then called upon to amend an act which had passed only a month ago. They had all been aware that the bill would have the effect of excluding Mr. O'Connell; yet considering the salutary effects which its general enactments tended to produce in Ireland, they were content to swallow it even with that imperfection. Were they then justified in now proposing an alteration of a measure which they had adopted with a full knowledge of its effects? He could not but lament that the amendment had been moved. It was much more calculated to excite than to allay agitation. If they adopted the first proposition, all that could be said upon it was, that there was a difference of opinion on it in the House; but the effects of the amendment would not be so harmless. He objected to the amendment on the ground that it was a naked proposal to amend the Relief bill. He fully concurred with his hon. colleague, that it would be better to see the hon. member for Clare taking his place in that House, than have him recognized as the head and acknowledged chief of that agitation which prevailed in Ireland.

said, the hon. member for Limerick had, in his opinion, taken a very unfair course, for the result of the arguments which he had used would do anything rather than quiet the agitation which was still abroad in Ireland. If that country was agitated in consequence of the resolution of that House, he should like to know on what ground that agitation was to take place? Could it be said that the bill had been framed out of any personal feeling towards the hon. member for Clare, after the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rice) had himself stated, from that hon. member that he wished his own situation to be left entirely out of the question; and had also gone on to say, that if the hon. member for Clare was a petitioner at that House, it would be a bar to his plea, that he himself had produced the agitation which gave rise to the introduction of the bill? If Mr. O'Connell considered himself excluded by the bill, the time was passed for his making it a subject of complaint to the House; and he could not but think, if the House passed a bill such as the hon. member for Limerick desired, that the other House and the country would be induced to believe, what it was by no means intended to admit—that the bill was intended to conciliate Mr. O'Connell and the Catholics of Ireland. He apprehended too, that if they suspended the execution of the writ, their conduct would be liable to the same objection. They would be considered as consenting to a virtual repeal of some of the provisions of that salutary measure which had been carried amidst so many difficulties, and which had conferred so great a benefit on Ireland. If they were now to take into their consideration any measure for the amendment of that part of the bill which went to exclude Mr. O'Connell, those who were so much opposed to the passing of the Relief bill would seize the occasion to attempt the repeal of many of the most vital portions of the act. He trusted therefore, that the House would not even on such an occasion as this depart from those provisions which it had determined upon, after the most deliberate consideration. Mr. O'Connell could not complain that he had been taken by surprise. He knew very well, before he came to the table, that the Oath of Supremacy would be tendered to him; and the hon. member for Limerick could not be ignorant of that fact when the bill was under consideration. No one desired more earnestly than he did to see Mr. O'Connell a member of that House; and he certainly should find no fault with the electors of Clare if Mr. O'Connell was returned again, because he believed most sincerely that he had laid all the population of Ireland under the deepest obligation. The electors of Clare had, however, no just reason to complain of the rejection of Mr. O'Connell as their member; they knew at the time they elected him that he could not take the oaths which would be required; and if it was contended that they did not know it, their want of knowledge must be attributed to the representations of Mr. O'Connell, who pledged himself as a lawyer, that he could sit in that House as their member without taking the oaths, and upon that representation they were induced to return him. In that opinion he was unfortunately mistaken; but then, he had no reason to complain of the decision of the House, nor had the electors any fair ground of objection to the course which parliament pursued.

gave his hon. friend, credit for every possible good motive in proposing his present amendment; but at the same time he must really ask him what good he proposed to effect by it. Mr. O'Connell had had the full benefit of every doubt that could be suggested upon the statute. In the discussion of Monday, he would not say the consciences, but certainly the understanding of the House had been strained to the utmost, to give Mr. O'Connell the benefit of every doubt. What, then, was it that his hon. friend proposed to do by his present motion? Had he the slightest chance of carrying it? And if he had not, what else but agitation could follow the discussion of it? Mr. O'Connell had no fair ground to complain that he had been treated with hardship. If he had any ground of complaint at all, it was that his constituency in Clare had been destroyed, by being left so long without any one to represent them in that House. But, who was to blame for that? If the hon. gentleman had taken the necessary oaths before the close of last session, or if he had presented himself there for the same purpose at an early part of this session, he would have been sent back much sooner to the consti- tuency which elected him. The House was not to blame for any injury which had been done to the constituency of Clare. If any person was to blame, it was Mr. O'Connell himself; who, by his delaying to tender himself to take the Oath of Supremacy, had pro tanto disfranchised his own constituents. Mr. O'Connell could not be admitted to take his seat under the Relief Act; except by making an ex post facto addition to it in his behalf; and he thought that Mr. O'Connell was not in a situation to expect any thing like grace or favour from the House. He admitted the benefit which Mr. Connell had conferred upon his Catholic fellow-subjects; but he must contend, that as he was elected under the old, he had no claim to the benefit of the new, law. The House could not, without degrading itself, accede to the amendment.

said, he could not vote for the amendment. Having acquiesced in the bill with the clause in it, which had the effect of excluding Mr. O'Connell, he could not so soon turn round and say, that it should be practically abrogated; at the same time, although upon these grounds he was opposed to the amendment, he was also opposed to the motion of the Solicitor-general. He differed totally from the hon. member for Kirkcudbright in thinking that a new writ should necessarily and immediately issue. Neither by the common law, the statute law, or the law of parliament, did he conceive it necessary that a new writ should issue, merely because the hon. member refused to take the oaths. The case of Mr. Archdale had been mentioned; but that was a case which he did not consider at all in point; and even if it were, one precedent did not constitute law. Upon these grounds he would oppose both the original motion and the amendment.

wished to state why he thought himself at liberty, after giving the subject the fullest consideration, to vote for the original motion. He candidly confessed, that when the Relief bill was passing through the House, he considered it as excluding Mr. O'Connell from his seat. He lamented it exceedingly; but he acquiesced in it, because he felt himself bound to oppose nothing and to propose nothing, which could risk the success of a bill, which he believed to be pregnant with the most salutary consequences. Notwithstanding the knowledge which he had of the intention of the legislature, he considered himself at liberty to avail himself of any defective language, if any such could be discovered in the bill, to open the doors of the House to Mr. O'Connell. Not being able to discover any such defective language in the bill, and being resolved to take no part in excluding from his seat a person whom he believed to be one of the greatest benefactors to Ireland, he abstained altogether from voting on the question. He lamented that his hon. friend, the member for Kirkcudbright should, being himself a lawyer, and knowing the effect of such observations, have seemed to cast some reflection upon Mr. O'Connell for the declarations contained in his address to the freeholders of Clare. Surely no man could doubt, that declaration of opinion respecting a right to sit in that House was made in perfect good faith. The case was by no means so clear as not to admit of doubt. As a lawyer of undisputed eminence he might well entertain such an opinion; and, as a man of unimpeachable honour, he might well get credit for sincerity in propounding it. Under all the circumstances of the case, he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his amendment.

hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his amendment. It was one of the misfortunes of these discussions that they assumed a personal character, without the slightest disposition on the part of members to consider the question with reference to the hon. member for Clare as an individual. For his part, he had voted on the former evening against the claim of the hon. member because he considered the question as one of a nature purely judicial, and because he was convinced the claim could not be supported; and although some hon. members had not voted, he believed they held the same opinions. He wished to see Mr. O'Connell in that House; but when called upon to decide the question of his right to sit without taking the Oath of Supremacy, he felt that, in the discharge of an important duty, he could not do otherwise than oppose the claim. He trusted that his hon. friend would withdraw his amendment; for he did not think it becoming in the House to employ its time in looking for flaws in bills of importance, or in special pleading upon their wording and import. The House, after a discus- sion which had been conducted with great ability, had declared that Mr. O'Connell could not sit and vote in parliament, unless he first took the Oath of Supremacy. He had declined taking that oath; and therefore the motion of the Solicitor-general should take its course.

expressed his readiness to withdraw his motion. Had he conceived it to be at variance with the good faith and honour of the House, he could not have proposed it. As there did, however, seem to be a very general opinion that, any alteration of the Relief bill might involve a construction of that kind he was anxious to withdraw it; and if any expressions had fallen from him calculated to excite angry feelings in Ireland, no one could regret it more strongly than he would.

said, he cordially rejoiced in the announcement of the hon. member. So little, indeed, was he disposed to take any triumph on this question, that he preferred such a conclusion to any negative of the motion, although supported by a large majority. Indeed, he should not have said a single word on the subject, had he not wished to make an observation on an expression which fell from an hon. member, attributing harshness and severity to those who brought forward the motion for the exclusion of Mr. O'Connell. Now, every thing which could give the slightest semblance of the motion being a personal proceeding had been wholly avoided. So far from wishing to push the proceedings beyond the usual practice of parliament, the motion, although not expressly enjoined by law, was not in the discretion of the House, and was in every respect conformable to its practice, in cases either exactly similar or bearing a strong analogy to that of the member for Clare. In the cases of lord Fanshaw and sir H. Monson, upon a refusal to qualify, they were discharged from their attendance, not expelled, and new writs were issued. The case of Archdale, the Quaker was, however, precisely in point. There had been a case, too, of recent occurrence, which bore a strong analogy to that of Mr. O'Connell. He alluded to the case of Mr. Southey. Mr. Southey was elected member for Downton; and having thereupon written a letter to the Speaker, intimating that he did not possess the necessary qualification, the Speaker read the letter to the House, and a new writ was issued immediately. So far, therefore, as precedent went, the practice had always been in strict conformity with the present motion. Had not the House, however, acted with the greatest forbearance to Mr. O'Connell? It was well-known to every member that Mr. O'Connell had been in town from the commencement of the session; and yet although this was notorious, had any motion been made to compel him to present himself for the purpose of taking the oaths? No motion of that kind had been attempted; and when the decision of the House was made, that decision, it ought to be recollected, was forced upon it by Mr. O'Connell himself. The course of the House had been throughout perfectly justifiable. They could not, in compliance with their duty, have adopted any other. Mr. O'Connell had pronounced a determination not to take the oaths; and he would ask, was not the House bound to provide for a new election? It had been intimated, that government had used its influence to increase the majority upon this question. To that statement he gave the most peremptory contradiction. The government had not interfered in any way upon the subject. Even those ordinary forms which they all knew were used to give information to members when business of importance might be expected, was departed from in that instance. He viewed Mr. O'Connell's case merely as that of an individual; and should treat it as he should the case of any other member. The course which the law of the land and the precedents of parliament pointed out should be, without hesitation, pursued towards Mr. O'Connell, regardless of the consequences which an hon. gentleman seemed to fear would result from doing so. His gallant friend seemed to anticipate with considerable alarm the consequences which would follow the course now proposed for adoption by the House. Now, he felt no such alarm. The observations of his gallant friend he should answer by merely stating a few facts respecting the course which government had pursued, during the last few weeks, in the county with which his gallant friend was connected. Several instances of insubordination and disturbance having recently occurred in the manufacturing districts in that county, he had thought it right in mercy to the deluded sufferers, to send over to Ireland for the transport of some troops into Lancashire. Now, so far from being informed that they could not be spared, he had received the following letter from the highest authority in the sister kingdom; and he mentioned the fact to show the beneficial consequences which had already resulted from the late measure of concession. On the 9th of May he had written to the lord lieutenant to send over three regiments if he could spare them, and on the 11th his excellence had written to him the following reply:—"I have this day received your letter of the 9th signifying your wish to withdraw, if possible, one regiment of cavalry and two of infantry from the military force of this country. In reply to which, it gives me real satisfaction to inform you, that, under present appearances, these regiments may be spared, without any danger to the public peace of this country." There was in this letter enough to satisfy him of the beneficial manner in which the late bill had operated upon the tranquility of Ireland. Why, then, was it to be said that the present question, which was merely one of parliamentary privilege, was calculated to undo the good they had already achieved? He cared nothing about the new election for Clare; all he considered was, the necessity of maintaining the just privileges of parliament. Upon the question of expediency also, he was much fortified in his opinion; for if they were to re-open this consideration, what would those think who were affected by the forty-shilling disfranchisement bill, which was the price paid for the larger measure. Upon the fullest deliberation, therefore, he saw no other course which it became them to take, than to agree to the motion of his hon. and learned friend.

said, he merely wished that the course which the House was about to take should be clearly understood. It was a mistake to say, that the issuing of the new writ necessarily followed from Mr. O'Connell's refusal to take the oath. There was no statute which attached such a consequence to the refusal of a member to take any particular test. There was no statute which vacated a seat under such circumstances. There was, indeed, one which inflicted a penalty for sitting and voting, before the oaths were taken; but Mr. O'Connell had neither sat nor voted. The simple refusal to take the oath, there- fore, did not enjoin the issuing of the new writ. Indeed, there were cases upon the Journals—far instance, that of sir Joseph Jekyl, in 1715—where a member might sit upon a secret committee of the House, although he had never taken his seat. Nothing was, therefore, more inaccurate than to say that the refusal to take the oath enjoined the disqualification from taking the seat.

disclaimed, in the strongest manner, any personal hostility to Mr. O'Connell, while he felt it his duty to vindicate the privileges of parliament.

The amendment was then withdrawn, and the original motion agreed to.

, after observing, that it was expedient that a limited time should be assigned for the presentation of Petitions, and having alluded to the great increase of business which had of late years devolved upon parliament, moved, "that it be a standing order of this House, that no motion shall be made for leave to present a Petition after half-past five o'clock, until the orders of the day shall have been disposed of."

supported the motion, and expressed himself satisfied, that if business were to go on increasing as it had been of late years, the effect of the present system would be to kill off all the old members, in consequence of the late hours which they were in the habit of keeping.

opposed the motion, on the ground that the right of Petition was the undoubted privilege of the people, and ought not to be restricted. He, as the representative of a populous county, the inhabitants of which often felt it necessary to petition parliament, felt bound to make this objection to the motion. He thought it would be more advisable to leave the matter to the discretion of the House, in the event of any pressing emergency which might render a departure from the usual mode of receiving Petitions necessary.

The motion was negatived.

begged to assure the House, that a sense of duty alone could have induced him to appear as the mover of a measure of great difficulty and public importance. He disclaimed all pretension to the merit of it, whilst he was willing, if the House should see proper, to take his share of any trouble which might attend it. For more than five years past the magistracy of Surrey had felt it necessary to direct its attention to the immense increase of buildings which had taken place in the county, and to the manner in which they were constructed, with reference to the public safety and individual protection. An inquiry into the manner in which the duties of the district surveyors were discharged, their powers and their legal redress as provided by the existing state of the law, and the discovery of a complete change in the mode of constructing houses, convinced them that this subject required a minute investigation; and in the year 1824, a report was made to the quarter sessions of Surrey by a committee (composed of magistrates many of whom had great knowledge and experience on the subject,) that the existing law required much alteration, and recommending that an application should be made to the magistracy of the county of Middlesex to co-operate in the investigation and remedy of its defects. A committee of Middlesex magistrates was accordingly appointed, and the opinions and recommendations of the joint committees were laid before the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That right hon. gentleman thought it proper to refer the matter, through the commissioners of Woods and Forests, to a surveyor of great eminence who declared, that professional men cordially concurred in the necessity of an alteration of the law. It was under such united opinions thus collected that he proposed to submit to the House the propriety of an amendment of the law. If the House should permit the introduction of the bill, it was his intention to have it circulated during the recess, in order that it might be taken up early next session. He would now move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to extend and amend the provisions of the Building-act, 14 Geo. 3rd, c. 78."

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

said, that he thought this the proper time to state the doubts he entertained of the propriety of bringing forward the present measure; not that he doubted that an addition ought in justice to be made to the Salaries of the Scots Judges, but that he feared by bringing it forward now, a great impediment would be put in the way of the proposed improvements in the Scots courts of justice. Two commissions had been appointed to inquire and report on this subject; and the report of the last, commission appointed under the act of 1825 was on the table, recommending a most important measure, the union of the jury court with the court of session. The commissioners were unanimous on this point, though they differed as to the mode of effecting it. If this plan was adopted, the duties of the Judges would be materially altered, and with what propriety were their Salaries to be fixed before their duties were ascertained? There were other points that previously demanded the attention of the legislature; such as the expediency of abolishing the Admiralty and Commissary courts, in which case the greater proportion of their duties would devolve on the court of session. He was in favor of such a measure, but would willingly acquiesce in any decision the House should come to, though he was clear it should be discussed before the question of Salaries. It was true that an arrangement might be made, that the Judges should receive the augmentation, on condition of doing all the duties that might afterwards fall on them without any farther addition; but he thought insuperable practical difficulties would arise from fixing their Salaries before their duties were determined. He had no wish to oppose the government, and it was painful for him to obstruct this measure; but he could not remain in his place satisfactorily to himself without avowing the serious doubts he entertained on the subject.

said, that the question was one totally distinct from that to which the hon. member had addressed his observations. It referred to an augmentation of Salary, on the ground of the increase of active professional duty. This, he believed, could not be denied. It could not, therefore, interfere with the proposed alteration in the Scotch courts.

thought there were many details requisite before they entered into a committee on this Bill. Surely the right hon. gentleman ought, at least, to tell the House the number of hours that the Scotch Judges sat, the number of hours that they did not sit, the number of days that they had nothing to do, the number of weeks and months which they kept entire holiday during six months of the year. There was one day in each week which they invariably kept holy, and that was Monday—a day usually kept as a holiday by much harder-working people; and the half of Saturday was spent in pretty much the same manner. These learned gentlemen had holidays for four months at one period of the year, and two at another; not including a fortnight or three weeks at Christmas. In these observations he did not include the Judges of the justifier court, who went the circuits. It should be understood that there were three sorts of Judges in Scotland. First, the Judges of the Court of Session, who were what was called Civil Judges, or Judges with one gown. Next, there were six Judges with the double gown; who could try civil and criminal cases. And, thirdly, as there were in other countries Pachas with one, two, and three tails, so in Scotland, there were Judges with one, two, and three gowns. He hoped that time would be allowed, in order to see what the nature of the additional labor of the Judges might be; with a view to a due apportionment of the increase of Salary.

did not think the Judges of the Scotch courts at all over-paid. If they had less to do in court than the English Judges, it was because they did a great deal of other business at home. On the whole, the labour they had to perform was quite equal to that of the English Judges. The Judges of the Court of Session had as much labour as the Judges of Justiciary. He fully agreed, that it was time to do justice to those learned men. Four years ago the Salaries of the English Judges were augmented, and it was now 5,500l.; while the Scotch Judges, who were compelled to maintain their rank in society, had only 2,000l. a year. He also thought the Judges of the Consistorial courts were not properly paid. They decided all questions of legitimacy, marriage, and divorce; which were among the most important questions that could come before a Judge, and their salaries were not above 500l. or 600l. a year.

was surprised that a proposition for making such important alterations should have been brought forward on the eve of the session. It had been the general opinion that it was the desire of ministers to bring the session to a close as early as possible; he dared to say for the best reasons. Many measures of amelioration and relief, as well as of inquiry, had been consequently put off, and yet this was the time chosen for considering an augmentation of the whole judicial establishment of Scotland. Four years ago the salaries of the English Judges had been increased; perhaps beyond what they would have been, if the proposition had been made at the present moment. But, what was to be inferred from the silence of ministers respecting the Scotch Judges for those four years? Why, that there was no pressing necessity for this augmentation. There might possibly be very considerable improvements in the system of the Scotch courts. There were twenty-one judges: their circuits were very different from the circuits of England; the chief justice did not go the circuit at all. Then the court of Exchequer was hardly a court. The Salaries of the Judges, however, had been tripled since 1793. A single gown in 1792 received 790l.; now 2,000l. A system which sent so many appeals to the high court of appeal stood in need of some improvement; and the worst way to improve it was to increase the salaries of the establishment. No ground for the increase appeared from the clearness of the articles of necessity. The general complaint of the country was, that its present distress was occasioned by the cheapness of commodities. This, he thought, was a reason why the measure should be postponed to another session, to be considered with reference to the duties of the Judges and the whole establishment.

said, that all that his right hon. friend asked of the House, was to allow him to go into a committee, when he would state the proposal he had to make. It was the usual practice to give the Scotch Judges salaries bearing a certain proportion to those of the English Judges. He knew that it was contemplated four years ago, by his noble friend then at the head of the government, to propose an addition to the Salaries of the Scotch Judges. Within the last year it had fallen to his lot to advise his majesty in the filling up two seats in the Court of Session, and the gentlemen who had been appointed to those seats had lost the benefit of that increase. The question of salary was not, he thought, to be determined by the state of society in Scotland, but a reference to the great consideration, what salary was necessary to induce men eminent at the Scotch bar to accept the situation of Judge.

was surprised to hear of the difficulty of getting persons to fill these offices. What! was there no Scotch lawyer to be found, in 1829, who would become a Judge without an increase of salary? His right hon. friend had asked, with all that gravity which so well befitted him, "shall we not, after increasing the Salaries of the English Judges, bring the Scotch Judges square with them, considering how much they have to do, and the impossibility of finding others to fill their situations?" Now, upon this point he really could not believe him. He was convinced, that if a hundred Scotch Judges were defunct to-morrow, there would be abundant opportunities of getting others. A learned gentleman who was himself a lawyer, and who had been improving himself by contact with the wise men of the East, had told the House of the heavy duties of the Scotch Judges, and of the prodigious mass of matters which came before them; and he thought it would strengthen their wits to give them a considerable quantity of money. But he thought, that the poorer a man was, the sharper he was; and that he ought not to blow out his jacket with roast beef on a Sunday, but to keep him spare and thin, in order that the sensorium might not be overloaded with the sanguineous humor, but that he might be able, at all times of the day, to give a clear opinion. He, therefore, differed from his right hon. friend, and also from the learned sage from the East, [a laugh] and should give his negative to the motion for going into a committee.

The House having gone into the committee,

said, he had hoped his proposition would have met with general concurrence; and, though he now rose with somewhat a different impression, yet he could not think that the House would receive it otherwise than favorably. He looked upon his proposition as the discharge of a debt that had been long owing. The House had, almost unanimously, in 1826, agreed to an augmentation of the Salaries of the Judges in England. When he recollected this fact,—when he recollected the fact, that government were then asked, why they did not augment the Salaries of the Judges in Scotland,—and when he recol- lected, that lord Goderich replied, that that subject ought to be, and should be taken into consideration; he could not but regard himself rather as discharging a debt, than as proposing to augment the public expenses in a time of difficulty. The leading ground on which he founded his proposition was, that the present Salaries of the Scotch Judges were not of such an amount, with reference to the emoluments of the profession from which Judges were drawn, as to secure to the public men who were competent to the discharge of individual duties, and who had proved themselves to be so, by rising to eminence as advocates. The salary of the lords of session was no more than 2,000l. a year. He was not acquainted with the emoluments made by the leading practitioners in Edinburgh; but he was informed that it so far exceeded that sum as to render it hopeless to expect any of those individuals, whom it might be desirable to elevate to the bench, to accept that situation, unless as a sort of retirement.—He would now state the nature and extent of the additional remuneration he proposed. There were thirteen lords of session, independently of the lord president and the lord chief justice clerk. The emoluments of each of these now amounted to 2,000l. a year. Five of these were Judges in the court of justiciary, and received for that additional duty 600l. a year. To these two sums he now proposed to add 500l, which would make 2,500l. a year for some of the Judges, and 3,100l. for those who combined the criminal and civil jurisdictions. It had been usual to consider that the Salaries of the Scotch Judges should be one half of what was paid to the English Judges. The Scotch Judges united duties which, in this country, were assigned to common-law and equity Judges, and even did some of the business of Masters in Chancery. He agreed with the principle which had been acted on in England, that the chief justices ought not to sell any of the subordinate offices of their courts, and he therefore intended to withdraw from the lord chief justice clerk the sale of offices that formerly were at his disposal; and as a remuneration, he proposed to give that learned person 1,000l. a year in addition to his present salary, which would leave him with an income bearing the same proportion as before to that of one of the lords of session. He proposed a similar addition to the salary of the lord president, with an extension of his duties. At present the lord president was at the head only of the civil court, and much convenience was anticipated from assigning to him the duties of the lord justice-general, whose office, now almost a sinecure, was to be discontinued. The saving thus effected would compensate for this addition. He did not propose to extend this increase of salary to the Judges of the Exchequer, nor to the Judges of the jury court, especially as the constitution of the latter court was to come under the consideration of the House next session, and as the salary received by those who were members of the jury court exceeded, by 600l. a year, that of a lord of session. The government had put these additions at the lowest possible sum, with reference to the object of obtaining able men; not having faith in the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Reigate, that in order that men's wits should be sharp they should be as poor as possible. As he thought it desirable to have men as Judges who did not want to retire from business, or who had not been able to attain business, he should move a resolution for granting 1,000l. a year additional to the lord president, 1,000l. a year additional to the lord justice clerk, and 500l. a year additional to each of the Judges of the session court who were not members of the jury court.

.—I cannot permit the chancellor of the Exchequer to remain unanswered by the hon. member for Reigate. I did not say that you ought to starve men in order to produce their wits. For what I did say, I have authority. Allow me to refer to a volume which is not very often quoted in this House, but which is nevertheless a very high authority. I say, with Hagar, "Give me neither poverty nor riches: not poverty, lest I should steal; nor riches, lest I should forget my God." Did I ask you to visit the Scotch Judges with any greater poverty than they are now under? No: I said leave them as they are. When my noble relative, who was called for shortness "Prosperity Robinson," proposed a vast increase in the salaries of the English Judges, I was not at all surprised; but I did not suppose that the present chancellor of the Exchequer would have caught the mantle of my noble relative. I thought that he came in with all the extreme notions of a strict economist, and that he would not let a shilling go out of the Treasury without first looking on either side of it.

admitted that it was a very ill saying of money to underpay men holding high offices; for such men should always be independent and respectable, and they could be neither if they were underpaid. There must, however, be a rule to guide them in this as in other matters. No doubt, men in the vigor, not in the first, but in the second vigor of life, should, if possible, be placed on the bench;—no doubt such men should be in the possession of a considerable professional income. If men possessing these two qualifications refused a seat on the bench, then they might be sure that Judges were underpaid. But he denied that it was necessary that the bench should be filled from the first class of lawyer or from the second class of lawyers, dividing them into classes by the extent of their practice. There was a third and a much more numerous class; and he would venture to say that in England there would be no difficulty in finding in the third class men of talent, experience, and independence, who would be glad to take a seat on the bench at the ancient salary of, 4,000l. a year. So in Scotland, he had no doubt that such men would be found to whom 2,000l. a year would be sufficient. The right hon. gentleman seemed to be impressed with a notion far too high of the emoluments of Scotch advocates. He was sorry to say that many men at the Scotch bar who were very fit to be Judges did not make 2,000l. a year. As to the proportion between the salaries of Judges in England and Scotland, we had invariably broken through that proportion; and therefore there was an end of that argument. He was rather alarmed, however, at this part of the right hon. gentleman's speech. For if, as the English Judge rose, he was to draw after him the Scotch Judge, why was he not also to draw after him the Irish Judge? It might be said, that the Irish Judge ought to keep company with his fellow Judge in England; and that when he saw the English Judge reaching, by a rapid stride, to a salary of 5,500l. a year, he ought not to be stranded, as it were, on 4,000l. a year, as before. As to the augmentation of the salaries of the English Judges, he must say, that he never heard a proposition with more unmingled disapprobation than he heard that of lord Goderich; and he believed that no persons were more astonished at that proposition than the twelve individuals who were most interested in it. With respect to the Scotch Judges, he thought that 2,000l. a year would be found sufficient; but if a seat on the bench were declined, on the ground that 2,000l. a year was not enough, then there would be a good reason for augmentation. Enough, however, had been said by the chancellor of the Exchequer to show, that this proposition was premature; for many alterations would probably be made in the Scotch judicial system next session. The Sinecure committee reported, that the office of lord justice-general ought to be abolished; and he believed that, after the termination of the existing interest, that office would be abolished. It could not, therefore, be contended, that the provision proposed to be made by this bill was for the purpose of compensation. It was said, that it was intended to remodel the office of president of the court of session. Why not let the augmentation of the salary await, instead of preceding, the increase of the business of that office. He thought that, in estimating the amount of increase of salary by the amount of business performed, the Judge of the Jury court, who had twice as much work to do as the other Judges, ought to to be allowed more than 100l. per annum than the others. The Scotch Judges had incomparably less work to do than the English Judges, in consequence of the absence of that refinement which created great litigation in this country. By the establishment of the Jury court the business of the Judges had been diminished, while their salary had been increased. The Judge formerly used to be obliged to read large quantities of written evidence and to compare the arguments, and then decide on the fact at issue. The decision of the court was now left to the jury, and therefore the Judge was saved the great labour of reading through these vast minutes. He was of opinion, that a proportion should be kept up between the labour done and the salary given for that labour; and he thought it would be better, in the present state of the country, and when it was stated that something was to be done next year with the duties of the Scotch Judges, to postpone the question respecting their salary until it was arranged what amount of business they were to perform.

thought the pro- posed augmentation of the salaries not unreasonable, because it would tend to make the Judges independent. He was of opinion, that when the subject of the practice of the Scotch courts came under consideration next year, parliament would be better able to deal with it, than when connected with a question of salary. The income of the Scotch Judges was certainly inadequate; barristers were often solicited to become Judges, and many individuals had refused for a length of time to take places on the bench. He must say, that a great extent of business had come before these courts for many years past. At that moment, there was in one court a year's arrear, although it certainly was not a very heavy arrear. The time of the sitting of the Judges was not to be viewed as a matter depending on them; but a much greater portion of their time was occupied than the hon. and learned gentleman had stated. There were ample grounds for granting the moderate allowance proposed to the committee. It was much wanted; for there were no less than four of them who had not private carriages to convey them to their courts. Was that befitting the dignity of the judicial station?

argued, that, instead of going to the third class of lawyers to select Judges, it was much better to select them from the first. They could not judge of the talent of an individual, clever though he might be, who was unknown in his profession; and therefore there was danger of making a mistake, by selecting from the third rank. The safe rule was, to look to the higher barrister. He must say, that the Secretary of State, since he had the selection of the Judges, had acted in a manner which was exceedingly creditable to him.

said, he could not concur in the fitness of the time at which the augmentation was proposed. The time of alteration and arrangement next session would be the most reasonable opportunity for fixing the amount of salaries.

, said it was obvious, now that every thing had been stated, that this was not the time to make the proposed augmentation of salary. On the grounds of expediency, of deference to public feeling and to parliamentary usage, they were bound to make the alterations which had been spoken of in the judicial esta- blishments before they decided on this measure. At a future session, the question must come before the House, and he should then not object to a modified augmentation of salary to the Scotch Judges.

said, that finding the opinion he had at first expressed in favour of delay, so Strongly confirmed by all that had since passed, he should propose to report progress. Additional reasons1 for this course of proceeding might be given; but he must first observe, that some misconceptions seemed to him still to prevail as to the duties of the Scotch Judges. The learned member for Winchelsea spoke chiefly of the Inner Court, but there were two Inner Courts, in one of which the business was considerably in arrear; and though some of the Judges in the outer House had not much business, others had more than they could do. Now, this ought undoubtedly to be considered, before considering the increase of their salaries. Many persons of the highest authority thought that the sittings of the court should be prolonged, as by the late changed a greater proportion of the business was done by the Judges in court. It was of great importance to consider how far their duties could be equalized. He had already adverted to the question as to abolishing the Commissary Courts and Admiralty Court—he did not agree with the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, that a case was made out for augmenting the salaries of the commissaries; but injustice would be done to the Judge admiral if his salary were not raised with those of the other Judges while the office continues. The duties of the Teind Court that remained, should be got rid of. They were ministerial and not judicial, and of a discretionary and arbitrary nature, and tended to render the lords of session unpopular. It was much for the interest of the landed proprietors and of the clergy also, that their stipends should be settled once for all by a parliamentary commission or otherwise, and the perpetual litigation between these two classes got rid of. This was an evil which the landed interest felt severely, and sooner or later it must attract the attention of the House.—He was most desirous in what he had said not to be misunderstood as opposing altogether an increase of the salaries of the Judges; so far from this was his opinion, that the increase proposed seemed to him in some respects too small. He had called the attention of the House to the propriety of an augmentation at the same time with his hon. friend the member for Malmesbury, during a former administration, and his opinion was still the same. His object therefore was not to oppose an increase of their salaries, but to postpone it for a year, in order that the contemplated improvements in the courts might at the same time be taken into consideration.

said, that as he perceived it to be the general feeling of the House that the question should be postponed to next session, he would not press it on the present occasion, though his opinion of the justice of the measure remained unchanged.

After a few words from Mr. Hume, the chanceller of the Exchequer, and sir C. Forbes, the original motion was withdrawn, and the House resumed. The measure therefore stands over till next session.

hoped, that the motion might be postponed, as it was his intention to move to-morrow for the production of certain papers; until the House was in possession of which it would be improper to proceed upon a bill of so much importance. The bill was objectionable in many of its most important features; and it did not remedy a single evil of which the public had so long and so justly complained. It was well known that the Ecclesiastical Courts took cognizance of cases is involving the dearest interests and deepest feelings of men; and yet their proceedings wire so expensive that they were closed to all who were not able to make a considerable sacrifice of money. It was the imperative duty of government to provide some more cheap, expeditious, and satisfactory mode of trying and determining the cases to which he alluded The bill before the House did not moderate. a single fee; on the contrary, it gave to, the judge the power of increasing fees in number and amount, whilst it left him no power to diminish them in either respect. Again, it gave to the same person the arbitrary power of suspending and dismissing officers of the court, without allowing them the right of appeal. The right hon. gentleman (sir J. Nicholl) had a salary of 2,000l. a-year; the remamder of his official income was made up by guinea fees. Now he thought such a mode of remunerating any person in a judicial office liable to the strongest objection. The bill also continued the monopoly among the proctors of the court. The regulation of 1696 established, that only thirty-four proctors should be allowed to practise in the court, and by this absurd restriction that body was enabled to make a monopoly of the business; depriving the public of the benefit of that competition which they enjoyed in every other court. The proctors held offices by which they were enabled to tax the bills of their own class. He knew an instance where a person had received a bill, in which, in three lines, he was charged the enormous sum of 992l. He demanded that the bill should be taxed; but he was told to apply to the court of King's-bench for redress. He did appeal to that court; and all his satisfaction was, to learn, after a further expenditure of no inconsiderable amount, that the court had no jurisdiction, and consequently could afford no redress. So vague, arbitrary, and uncertain were the fees, that the right hon. gentleman had suspended a practitioner for six months, for charging fees to the amount of 21l., when he (sir John) declared, that the legal exaction had never been carried beyond 14l. The person replied, "Why not publish a list of your fees, that we may all know what to charge?" He did not pretend to say whether the right hon. gentleman or the sufferer were right; but this he would say, that there ought to be a power of appeal in such a case. He liked not to see gentlemen framing bills and passing them through the House, which put them in possession of all existing fees; and continued to them the exercise of arbitrary power; exercised even without scrutiny. The registrar of the court received fees to the amount of 1500l. a-year; and he saw no necessity for such large incomes, derived from a system which inflicted such grievous evils upon the public.

said, that his functions in his court did not allow him to sit up so late—[it was two o'clock]—but hearing that the hon. member intended to say something about his court, he thought it best to down to the House and keep in his place. He could tell the hon. member that he was wrong in all he had said. In the first place, the fees of the court were not greater now than they were in 1734, and the present bill gave him no power to alter them, without first submitting the alteration for the approval of the privy council. The bill had been framed by him according to the report of the commissioners of inquiry. He denied that he had any salary; his whole official income being derived from fees. The table of fees contained in the bill was not that established in 1696; on the contrary, it was what had been established in 1734; this table was to be found in Burn's Ecclesiastical Law.

said, that the fees, it was true, had not been altered in ratio since 1734, but they had been increased in number almost fifty-fold. Hence the immense emoluments of the officers of the court. Whether he or the right hon. gentleman were right in their assertion as to the bright hon. gentleman's power to increase, and not to diminish the fees, with or without the approbation of the privy council, could best be ascertained by a perusal of the bill. He would move, by way of amendment, "that the report be taken into further consideration on this day three months."

After some further conversation, in which Mr. A. Dawson, Mr. Secretary Peel, and Mr. Gordon participated, the House divided: For the Amendment 3; Against it 33; Majority 30. While strangers were excluded from the gallery, a second division took place on Mr. Hume's motion, that the House do now adjourn: Ayes 3; Noes 32; Majority 29. On the motion, "that the amendments made by the committee to the bill be now read a second time," Mr. Hume expressed his determination to oppose the progress of the bill. Mr. Peel said, that as the hon. member was determined to pursue this vexations course against the decided sense of the House, he must request his right hon. friend to postpone the debate till Monday; which was agreed to.